The campaign is in full swing, this old guard asshole being the very first post on the talk page......
I have only one request of you folks (crats). Please remember to separate the Floq RfA from Framgate and WMFgate. I know that there are unavoidably going to be areas of intersection - but please remember to put weight where it belongs. Just a reminder - not a "you need to do this or that" post, I'll trust you folks to know what to do, that's why we picked you for that hat. — Ched : ? — 19:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
The not very subtle request being to discount every oppose vote that only mentions the Fram thing. Judge Floquenbeam by his overall record, not this one, tiny, unimportant, foegiveable, mistake.
What planet are these people on? The Fram thing is literally the only reason this seven day farce even occurred.
As usual, following the corrupt precedent set by RexxS, the Admin lobbyists are getting away with saying things which are directly contradicted by what even the candidate said (and there was me thinking Admins weren't allowed to deliberately deceive the community)........
I felt that my reverting an office action was probably serious enough that the community should decide whether I should still be an admin or not
I won't be able to do anything about opposes based on "RFA unnecessary, just ask at BN", but they will make me sad
opposes based on the belief that it was unacceptable for me to undo an office action are completely legitimate
[I] don't expect this RFA to be the cakewalk some people were claiming it would be in the immediate aftermath of the crisis. I knew the reversal of an office action (in spite of having consensus behind me) would cause further disruption, and I did it anyway
Plenty of context there to show Floquenbeam wanted his office defying act to be judged at a reconfirmation RfA, and a crystal clear statement that he seems to think he was justified because 'consensus' was behind him. One of the policies Administrators are expected to know, of course, is that office actions are CONEXCEPT.......
Office actions are not permitted to be reversed by editors except by prior explicit office permission.
That is still official Wikipedia policy, not that you would believe it from that 300+ expression of mob rule.
It is therefore pretty easy to see how these things should be weighted by truly impartial Bureaucrats.....
Zero weight should be given to supports who simply say stuff like 'yay, way to go Floq, you kicked those motherfucker's asses.', since there is absolutely no Wikipedia policy that says Adminship is about kicking the WMF's ass, ESPECIALLY not IAR. Similar discounts should be applied to votes which argue he should never have been desysopped in the first place, since they do not and cannot cite any policy, only the desire that whatever the mob wants, the mob gets. Same for all that fantasy land shit about community rights. They have NONE.
Maximum weight should be given to all opposes that say Floquenbeam's reversal of an office action represented a violation so singularly serious it means he can never be trusted to be an Administrator again, referencing as they did multiple relevant policies, not just OFFICE, CONEXCEPT and ADMIN, which might as well not exist if shit like this is allowed to happen, but also the ones that come into play even if you accept this shit can be justified by consensus - POINT, SOAP, RGW, etc, etc. And of course, CONSENSUS. The timeline presented in the RfA showed conclusively that Floquenbeam had not taken sufficient time, or given the WMF or the community sufficient opportunity to be able to realistically claim he had consensus to unblock. It has been shown in this RfA, in some detail, that he acted unilaterally, with haste, out of emotion, and with dubious motives and questionable benefits. Hence why his claim to have been supported by 95% of the community, now looks supremely arrogant, even if it was meant as a self-deprecating joke (it wasn't).